The return of the sandhill crane to Wisconsin is a conservation success, but now the state needs to manage the population and the crop damage the birds can cause. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

A Wisconsin Assembly committee held a public hearing Tuesday on a bill that would require the state to hold an annual hunt of sandhill cranes. 

The sandhill crane was once nearly extinct and its recovery is seen as a conservation success story. Similar to the return of the wolf, the growth of the sandhill crane population has caused a long running political debate in Wisconsin. For years, Republicans in the Legislature have been pushing for a sandhill crane hunt — arguing the opening of recreational opportunities would benefit the state’s hunting industry and advocating for eating the birds’ meat. 

The proposal this session stems from a legislative study committee commissioned last summer which examined how to mitigate damage caused by the birds to the state’s farm fields and the possibility of holding a hunt. Estimates say that each year the birds cause almost $2 million in crop damage, mostly to corn seeds that are eaten before they can sprout. 

In the initial version of the bill proposed by the study committee, a number of provisions were included that would have directly addressed the crop damage. If a sandhill crane hunt is authorized, that would allow farmers to access money through an existing Department of Natural Resources damage abatement program, but otherwise all the farm-specific provisions have been removed from the version of the bill now being considered by the Assembly. 

If a bird is frequently damaging a farmer’s crops, a depredation permit is obtainable from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, however federal law requires that the bird’s carcass not be consumed. 

Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc), the bill’s author, said the bill is a “well thought out proposal to relieve farmers and promote new opportunities for hunters.” 

But Democrats on the committee and critics of the bill questioned why the specific farmer assistance programs were cut out, how a hunt would affect the crane population and how much establishing a hunt would cost the DNR. 

Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point) noted that the Republicans were simultaneously arguing that holding a hunt wouldn’t significantly impact the state’s crane population and that holding a hunt would help mitigate the crop damage caused by the birds. 

“If it’s not going to impact the population very much, then how do we protect farmers’ investment in seed and corn sprouts and potatoes and cranberries, if we’re not going to actually impact the population to the benefit of the farmer,” Miresse said. 

Taylor Finger, the DNR’s game bird specialist, said in his testimony that opening the existing crop damage abatement program up to sandhill crane damage without adding additional funds to the program would result in “worse outcomes for farmers seeking assistance.” 

Republicans on the committee largely questioned the testimony of sandhill crane researchers. Anne Lacy, director of eastern flyway programs at the Baraboo-based International Crane Foundation, said she is concerned about holding a hunt in Wisconsin because it is one of the few places on the continent where sandhill cranes breed. 

“I don’t think there is a [population] number that justifies a hunt,” Lacy said. “There are many states that hunt sandhill cranes, and they do it successfully. They’ve been managed for years, including this population. But Wisconsin is a breeding state, so that puts a different spin on a hunting season … So it’s not so much a number. It is how a hunt affects this bird because of its ecology.”

In an extended back and forth in which he raised his voice, Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) pushed Lacy to say she is supportive of sandhill crane hunts elsewhere. 

“All right, so I catch you dodging me, so therefore you do not personally support a hunt in any other state,” Sortwell said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

“The strong penalties in AB 677 serve as a stern warning and deterrent to bad actors," Rep. Amanda Nedweski said. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A bill that would establish child grooming as a felony crime in Wisconsin received a public hearing Tuesday.

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) and Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) introduced the bill late last year after a report from the Capital Times found that there were over 200 investigations into teacher licenses stemming from allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023. 

Nedweski spoke about the case of Christian Enwright, a former Kenosha teacher who pleaded guilty last year to over a dozen misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct after he had an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old student, during the Assembly Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee hearing. 

“Unfortunately, the Christian Enwright story is all too common. For too long, these cases have been swept under the rug and child victims were put through a lifetime trauma, often knowing that the person who preyed upon them is likely out there doing it to another child,” Nedweski said. “The strong penalties in AB 677 serve as a stern warning and deterrent to bad actors. The bill ensures that adults who exploit positions of trust to manipulate and prey upon children can no longer hide behind misdemeanor charges or technical gaps in state law.” 

Under the AB 677, grooming would be defined as “a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts with the intention to condition, seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child for the purpose of producing distributing or possessing depictions of the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” 

Examples of behavior that would constitute grooming include verbal comments or conversations of a sexual nature directed at a child, inappropriate or sexualized physical contact; communication over text and social media to lure or entice a child; promising gifts, privileges, or special attention to lower a child’s inhibitions or create emotional dependence; and acts intended to isolate a child from family or peers.

While the bill was spurred in part due to cases involving teachers, the bill authors told the Assembly Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee that the bill would not just address grooming happening in the school arena. 

“It is important to remember that grooming can happen anywhere — grooming can happen anywhere, not just in our schools. This bill is not targeted at schools, but at grooming whenever and wherever it might happen,” James said. “I believe that it will have a strong deterrence effect. Clear criminalization of grooming behavior sends a strong message that predatory conduct will not be tolerated in Wisconsin.” 

A person convicted of a grooming charge, under the bill, would be guilty of a Class G felony. The charge would increase to a Class F felony if the person is in a position of trust or authority, and to a Class E felony if the child has a disability and to a Class D felony if the violation involves two or more children. A convicted person would need to register as a sex offender.

During the hearing, Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) said she thinks the bill is important, but expressed some concerns about whether it could result in a “chilling effect” that would discourage people from taking on mentorship roles or interacting with children. She said she wanted to ensure that lawmakers got the definition of grooming correct.  

“I think that this is a bill that if we get it right, we are going to protect so many kids and if we get it wrong, we are going to put a lot of people at risk,” Emerson said. 

Nedweski said legislators should remember that the bill would be related to a pattern of behavior, not a one-time occurrence, that there would need to be the intention to “entice” a child and it would be up to a prosecutor to decide whether a person’s behavior fits the crime. 

“That’s why we work so hard to get the definition as right as we can,” Nedweski said, adding that she and her colleagues  have worked with law enforcement and prosecutors to develop the bill and looked at what other states have done. “Nothing is ever going to be 100% perfect, but I think we’re pretty darn close.” 

Rich Judge, DPI assistant state superintendent for the division of government and public affairs, registered in favor of the bill on behalf of the agency, though he did not provide testimony. DPI Superintendent Jill Underly has previously said defining grooming is one of the top steps the state can take to work to address the issue.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A small crowd of far-right activists marched on the U.S. Capitol Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026 in a nonviolent protest. They followed the path of the march five years ago, when rioters attacked the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden's presidential election win. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Five years after a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, the struggle to define the event and assign blame carried on in events across the city Tuesday that remained nonviolent, though still disturbing.

A crowd of no more than a few hundred of President Donald Trump’s supporters commemorated the deadly attack with a somewhat subdued march from the Ellipse to the Capitol that was in stark contrast to the riot five years ago.

Inside the Capitol, U.S. House Democrats gathered in a small meeting room, apparently unable to secure larger accommodations for an unofficial hearing that largely rehashed the findings of a House committee that spent 2022 investigating the attack.

Trump, meanwhile, addressed House Republicans three miles west at the Kennedy Center. In an hour-plus address, he blamed then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the violence on Jan. 6, 2021 and recommended the GOP lawmakers pass laws to make election fraud more difficult. Trump’s claim that his 2020 election loss was due to fraud sparked the 2021 attack.

“Our elections are crooked as hell,” he said, without citing evidence.

House Dems blast pardons 

Inside the Capitol, at a morning event that U.S. House Democrats organized and in which Republicans didn’t take part, lawmakers and experts criticized Trump’s pardons of people involved in the 2021 attack, one of his first acts after returning to office last year.

They also decried his continued recasting of the events of the day.

White House officials launched a webpage Tuesday that blamed the attack on Democrats, again including Pelosi, and restated the lie that initiated the attack: The 2020 election that Trump lost was marred by fraud and should not have been certified.

“Democrats masterfully reversed reality after January 6,” the page reads. “…In truth, it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election, ignoring widespread irregularities, and weaponizing federal agencies to hunt down dissenters.” 

Pelosi at the hearing on Tuesday condemned Trump’s version of the attack. 

“Today, that president who incited that insurrection continues to lie about what happened that day,” the California Democrat said.

Other Democrats and their invited witnesses also described the pardons as signaling that the president accepted — and even encouraged — his supporters to pursue illegal means of keeping him in power. 

Brendan Ballou, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor who resigned shortly after Trump’s 2025 pardons, told the panel the executive action sent Trump supporters the “clear message” they were above the law.

“The January 6 pardons also fit into a broader narrative of what’s going on with this administration, that if people are sufficiently loyal and willing to support the president, either in words or financially, they will be put beyond the reach of the law,” he added. “It means that quite literally for a certain group of people right now in America, the law does not apply to them.”

Former ‘MAGA granny’ testifies

Homeland Security Committee ranking Democrat Bennie Thompson of Mississippi led the panel discussion, with Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin of Maryland and several others also sitting in on it.

The first panel of witnesses included Ballou, other experts and Pamela Hemphill, a former Trump supporter from Idaho who traveled to the nation’s capital five years ago to “be part of the mob” in support of the president before becoming an advocate for reckoning with the day’s violence.

An emotional Hemphill, 72 and once known as “MAGA granny,” apologized to U.S. Capitol police officers.

“Once I got away from the MAGA cult and started educating myself about January the 6th, I knew what I did was wrong,” Hemphill told the panel. “I pleaded guilty to my crimes because I did the crime. I received due process and the DOJ was not weaponized against me. 

“Accepting that pardon would be lying about what happened on January the 6th,” she added.

She explained her decision to decline Trump’s blanket pardon of offenders convicted of crimes related to the attack, saying it papered over the misdeeds of people involved in the riot. She implored others not to accept revisions of the narrative about what happened in the attack.

Subsequent panels included current and former House members, including two, Republican Adam Kitzinger of Illinois and Democrat Elaine Luria of Virginia, who sat on the committee tasked with investigating the attack.

Flowers for Ashli Babbitt

The crowd of marchers, which included pardoned Jan. 6 attack participants, gathered in the late morning to retrace their path to the U.S. Capitol five years ago.

Organizers billed the march as a memorial event to honor Ashli Babbitt, who was killed by U.S. Capitol Police during the riot in 2021 as she attempted to break into the House Speaker’s lobby.

Far-right activists celebrating the five-year anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol marched in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026, from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Rioters in 2021 attempted to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election win. (Video by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

The crowd of roughly a couple hundred walked from the Ellipse, where Trump spoke to rallygoers in 2021, to just outside the Capitol grounds, where police contained the small crowd on the lawn north of the Reflecting Pool. 

Law enforcement officers permitted Babbitt’s mother, Michelle Witthoeft, and a few others to walk closer to the Capitol to lay flowers at roughly 2:44 p.m. Eastern, the time they say Babbitt died.

A group of counterprotesters briefly approached the demonstration, yelling “traitors.” Police quickly formed two lines between the groups, heading off any clashes.

Proud Boys former leader on-site 

Among the crowd was former Proud Boys national leader Enrique Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison for seditious conspiracy and other charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. Trump commuted Tarrio’s sentence upon taking office for his second term.

While looking on at marchers, Tarrio told States Newsroom he was “just supporting.”

“It’s not my event. I’m just trying to help them with organizing and marching people down the street, I guess. But we’re here for one purpose, and that’s to honor the lives of Ashli Babbitt and those who passed away that day.”

When asked if marchers were also honoring the police officers who died in the days and months after the attack, Tarrio said he mourned “any loss of life” but added “I heard some suicides happened. I don’t know. I haven’t really looked into that. I’ve been in prison.”

U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick suffered injuries during the riot, according to the Capitol Police. He died the following day from natural causes, according to the District of Columbia Office of the Medical Examiner.

Four responding police officers died by suicide in the following days and months.

As the march continued, a group of Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police officers on bicycles stopped Tarrio and asked him to confirm the march route to avoid any “confusion.”

When counterprotesters began to heckle the Jan. 6 attack supporters, Tarrio waved the marchers forward, “C’mon, c’mon, keep moving.”

Jan. 6 rioter Rasha Abual-Ragheb, 45, of New Jersey, addressed the crowd earlier and thanked “Daddy Trump” for her pardon. Abual-Ragheb, who pleaded guilty to parading, demonstrating and picketing in the U.S. Capitol, showed off a tattoo on her arm reading “MAGA 1776.”

Willie Connors, 57, of Bayonne, New Jersey, stood on the edge of the crowd with a yellow “J6” flag tied around his neck. Connors said he didn’t enter the Capitol during the 2021 attack, but said he was in the district that day to protest the 2020 presidential election, which he falsely claimed was “robbed” from Trump.

“Donald Trump, I’ll take the bullet for that man. He’s my president,” Connors said. 

Multi-colored traditional Greenlandic homes in Nuuk, Greenland, are seen from the water on March 29, 2025 in Nuuk, Greenland. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is considering options to acquire Greenland, including possible military operations, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday, renewing a push for the Danish territory that follows the stunning U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro without congressional approval over the weekend.

Trump and his top officials have professed a need for the United States to take Greenland, which is a self-governing territory of Denmark that, like the U.S., is a member of NATO.

“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” Leavitt said in a statement to States Newsroom. “The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen in a Tuesday statement stressed to President Donald Trump that his country is “not something that can be annexed or taken over simply because someone feels like it.”

Leaders of Denmark and the heads of NATO countries Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and the United Kingdom, issued a joint statement in support of Greenland’s sovereignty. 

Leavitt’s comments came after the NATO allies’ statement. 

Greenland’s government did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment on Leavitt’s Tuesday statement.  

New questions after Venezuela

The Jan. 3 military operation in Venezuela to capture Maduro and his wife to be brought to face a trial in New York opened fresh doubt about the Trump administration’s foreign policy goals.

Following the operation, Trump held a press conference during which he said other countries could face the same fate. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement after senators were briefed by Trump officials Monday saying he could not get a clear answer that officials would not do the same thing to Columbia, Greenland or Iran. 

“Are we going to invade a NATO ally like Greenland? Where does this belligerence stop?,” the New York Democrat said.

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 18, 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. California Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa has died and Indiana Republican Rep. Jim Baird was injured in a car accident, President Donald Trump said Tuesday. 

Speaking to a meeting of House Republicans at the Kennedy Center, Trump said he wanted to express “our tremendous sorrow” following LaMalfa’s death and said the congressman was “a fierce champion on California water issues.”

“I also want to send our best wishes to Congressman Jim Baird and his wife, who are recovering from a car accident. They’re going to be okay. But they had a pretty bad accident,” Trump said. “And we’re praying they get out of that hospital very quickly. He’s going to be fine. She’s going to be fine. But it was a bad accident.”

The cause of LaMalfa’s death was not immediately clear on Tuesday morning. The Butte County Sheriff’s Office wrote in a statement that they received a 911 call on Monday evening from LaMalfa’s house about a medical emergency. 

The congressman was taken to Enloe Hospital, where he died during an emergency surgery, according to the sheriff’s office. 

“In accordance with standard protocols, the Coroner’s Unit of the Butte County Sheriff’s Office is conducting an investigation to determine the cause of death,” the statement said. “A forensic pathologist is scheduled to conduct an autopsy as part of this investigation.”

LaMalfa’s death will reduce Republicans’ already slim House majority, making it more complicated for leadership in that chamber to pass legislation that’s not bipartisan. 

Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation earlier this week, combined with LaMalfa’s death, decreases the GOP majority to 218 seats. 

Baird’s absence until he recovers and can vote in person further erodes that to 217. And it could be narrowed even more by GOP lawmakers missing votes for other reasons. 

Democrats control 213 House seats, giving Republican leaders next to no margin for defections on partisan bills. 

LaMalfa, 65, was first sworn in as a member of Congress in January 2013 and represented California’s 1st Congressional District, which covers a large section of the northeastern corner of the state. 

Baird, 80, has been a member of Congress for seven years, representing Indiana’s 4th Congressional District constituents in the central and northwestern parts of the state. 

Baird’s office released a statement shortly after Trump’s announcement, saying the congressman “is in the hospital and is expected to make a full recovery, and he is extraordinarily grateful for everyone’s prayers during this time. 

“Congressman Baird looks forward to continuing his work on behalf of Hoosiers. The Office of Congressman Baird will continue to provide services and support for those who need it. Congressman Baird and his office remain steadfast in their commitment to serving constituents and focused on advocating for Hoosiers at the highest levels of government.”

Johnson, Jeffries mourn LaMalfa

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., released a statement saying that “Congress is devastated to learn this morning about the passing of our dear friend and colleague, Doug LaMalfa.” 

“Doug was a lifelong resident of northern California and deeply loved its people. He was as fierce of a fighter for his state’s vast natural resources and beauty as we have ever known,” Johnson wrote. “We are mourning the loss of our friend and brother today and we send our respects for his life and work to his wife Jill and the LaMalfa family during this difficult time.” 

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York wrote in a statement that he joined “people across Northern California in mourning the untimely passing of Congressman Doug LaMalfa. 

“Doug and I joined the Congress as classmates in 2013, and it was an honor to witness firsthand his passion and personal resolve for more than a decade,” Jeffries wrote. 

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., released a written statement that he was “devastated to hear of the passing of my dear friend and colleague, Doug LaMalfa.”

“A fourth generation rice farmer, he fought passionately for the region’s agricultural community and small businesses, and in 2024 was elected Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, which focuses on the priorities of Western and rural America,” Scalise wrote. “He also worked to bolster disaster recovery efforts and funding for rural schools.”

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Richard Hudson of North Carolina wrote in a statement that he was “deeply saddened by the passing of my colleague and close friend, Congressman Doug LaMalfa.” 

“I cherished our time serving together on the Agriculture Committee and discussing NASCAR; he was a real gearhead and motorsports fan,” Hudson wrote. “I will deeply miss my ‘amigo.’ Renee and I are praying for his beloved wife Jill, as well as Kyle, Allison, Sophia, Natalie, and all his loved ones, friends, and staff during this incredibly difficult time.”

Milwaukee's King Park surrounded by yellow tape after Sam Sharpe, a resident of a temporary encampment there, was shot by Ohio police officers during the 2024 Republican National Convention. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety on Tuesday held a public hearing on a pair of bills that would require homeless people on the state’s sex offender registry to wear ankle monitors and increase the penalty for selling drugs close to homeless shelters. 

Under the first bill, authored by Rep. Dave Maxey (R-New Berlin), people required to sign up for the sex offender registry and unable to provide a permanent address must be placed under GPS monitoring. An estimated 16% of Wisconsin’s homeless population is on the sex offender registry, according to Maxey, who said he wanted to make sure this population was not a blind spot for Department of Corrections monitoring of people on the list. 

“This bill is a clear and common-sense public safety measure that applies one uniform standard so every registrant is monitored at the same level, regardless of housing status,” Maxey said. “This is a straightforward way to protect every member of our society.”

A number of Democrats on the committee had concerns about putting the proposal into practice. 

Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) wondered if the cost of the monitoring would end up being paid for by the state. 

“Most times, the GPS monitoring is paid for by the person who needs to wear it eventually,” Emerson said. “And if they don’t have the resources to afford a home, I don’t know if they’re going to have the resources to pay the state back for this. And is this something that we’re just going to end up incurring extra costs on? I’m trying to balance the cost versus safety factor.”

Rep. Sequanna Taylor (D-Milwaukee) noted that the ankle monitors need to be regularly charged, which might pose a challenge for people without a home. 

“When we talk about the GPS, I know even the people that are not in this situation, who may be on it, there are sometimes tweaks or glitches with them, and also the everyday charging, if we’re talking about someone who’s homeless, is not staying anywhere, I guess I’m just trying to see, how can we encompass or ensure that it will be charged, because once it’s not able to be charged and it’s off, are they meant to go report somewhere or is that a process we haven’t thought about yet?”

Another bill heard by the committee Tuesday, authored by Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield), would add homeless shelters to the list of places including schools, government buildings and public parks that are considered drug-free zones. Convictions for selling drugs within these zones carry harsher penalties. 

“Drug-related crimes pose a severe threat to community safety, particularly in areas where at-risk populations are located, current law wisely imposes enhanced penalties for distributing illegal drugs within 1,000 feet of sensitive locations like schools and parks, adding up to five years to the maximum sentence,” Donovan said. “These Drug Free Zones deter illegal activity and safeguard those who are most vulnerable. However, homeless shelters are not included in these protections. Many, many homeless individuals face profound challenges, including addiction and mental health issues. Extending these zones is about punishing malicious drug dealers who prey upon the homeless while providing basic security for them as they attempt to reenter society.”

But advocates for addiction treatment and criminal justice reform questioned the wisdom of the proposal. 

Dr. Charles Schauberger, an Onalaska resident and president of the Wisconsin Society of Addiction Medicine, said making homeless shelters a drug-free zone could increase police presence around a shelter, which might push homeless drug users away from the area and into more dangerous situations. 

“This legislation is not only ineffective in helping homeless people, but potentially worsens the situation,” Schauberger said. “Increasing criminal penalties for substance-related offenses near shelters may lead to increased law enforcement presence around these facilities for people who use substances they may carry, or may even carry a small amount for personal use, which creates a great deal of fear, fear of harassment, fear of incarceration, fear of losing the only safe place they have yet to go.”

He added that when people are afraid to use shelters, “they don’t disappear. They move further into unsafe spaces. They sleep outside. They use substances alone. They disengage from services. They increase risk of overdose. Medical emergencies, deaths make it much harder for clinicians like me to reach them.”

Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said that while the proposal has an “admirable goal” it comes with unintended consequences. She said that in the state’s larger, denser cities, so much of the land is covered by various drug-free zones that lots of drug-related activity is punished there more harshly than in rural parts of the state. 

“In densely populated urban areas, that radius around each of these integrated locations overlaps to the point where sometimes an entire city can become functionally a drug-free zone,” she said, noting that the city of Milwaukee contains 156 public schools, 101 private schools, 12 multi-unit public housing facilities, four public swimming pools, dozens of youth and community centers, hundreds of child care facilities, six correctional facilities and more than 130 public parks. 

“So studies have shown that these zones don’t necessarily track where drug activity is most prevalent, but rather where certain populations are concentrated,” she said. “So we create this kind of two-tiered justice system based on geography rather than the nature of the crime. So residents in cities can face greater exposure to enhanced maximum penalties than those in rural or suburban areas for the exact same conduct.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Protesters supporting U.S. President Donald Trump break into the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Five years ago today we were transfixed by the surreal spectacle of the attack on the U.S. Capitol. The violence and horror of that day was made more bearable when the insurrectionists were arrested and the election results they tried to overturn were certified.

But now they’re back, pardoned by President Donald Trump, released from prison and planning to parade triumphantly today through the streets of Washington, D.C. 

Among the people convicted and later pardoned by Trump, at least 33 have been arrested and charged with new crimes, according to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Their alleged continuing criminal behaviors include rape, illegal possession of weapons, firing on police officers, and, in the case of Chrisopher Moynihan, threatening to murder House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. 

Some of the most violent offenders are back behind bars. But the most powerful proponents of the Big Lie, including Trump himself, the enablers who staff his administration and the Wisconsin Republicans who hatched the fake electors scheme to try to overturn the results of the 2020 election, continue to work to undermine our democracy. 

“We must continue to defeat election deniers and the threats they pose,” the Wisconsin-based progressive firm Law Forward declares on its website, in a section devoted to a timeline of the fake electors scheme. Law Forward brought the first class-action lawsuit against the fake electors, and forced the release of documents, text messages and other evidence showing how the plot unfolded, starting in Wisconsin. They present the timeline “as a call to action for every American to see how close our democracy came to toppling and how the freedom to vote must continue to be protected, not taken for granted.” 

For a few years it seemed as though we had dispelled the nightmare of Jan. 6. But the lawless, emboldened second Trump administration has dragged us back to that scary, dangerous time.

The brave work of people like Jeff Mandell, founder of Law Forward, and the other lawyers, judges and investigators who continue to struggle against the agents of authoritarianism trying to destroy American democracy is still making a difference. 

Last month, Dane County Judge John Hyland found probable cause to continue the trial of Wisconsin attorney James Troupis and Trump campaign aide Mike Roman, charged with felony forgery by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul in connection with the fake electors scheme. Hyland  rejected Troupis’ desperate effort to scuttle the case by claiming another judge had a personal bias against him.

Wisconsin attorney Ken Cheseboro, the originator of the fake electors plot, is also facing felony charges.

As Trump and his gang openly defy the U.S. Constitution, pursue baseless, vindictive prosecutions of their political enemies, launch military actions without the consent of Congress, threaten to seize other countries and use their positions to enrich themselves while destroying the public welfare, it feels as through that dark moment on Jan. 6 when American democracy was under physical attack was just the beginning.

But as Mandell told me last year, a few months after Trump took office, “I think building a stronger, more resilient democracy in Wisconsin is its own form of resistance.”

“When things feel most shocking and unstable at the federal level,” at the state and local level, Mandell said, “we can show our institutions still work and provide some reassurance.” 

We need that reassurance today more than ever.

“We are slow to realize that democracy is a life and involves continual struggle,” said Robert M. La Follette, the great governor and senator from Wisconsin and founder of the Progressive movement. I’m grateful for the Wisconsinites today who, like La Follette, are committed to that life and willing to continue the struggle.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sarah Simmons, a midwife and co-owner of Maple Street Birth Center in rural Okanogan County, Wash., holds a newborn. Freestanding birth centers can address maternal health inequities, but many are facing mounting financial and regulatory pressures. (Photo courtesy of Sarah Simmons)

Dr. Heather Skanes opened Alabama’s first freestanding birth center in 2022 in her hometown of Birmingham. Skanes, an OB-GYN, wanted to improve access to maternal health care in a state that’s long had one of the nation’s highest rates of maternal and infant mortality.

Those rates are especially high among Black women and infants. Skanes’ Oasis Family Birthing Center opened in a majority-Black neighborhood, offering midwifery services as well as medical care.

But about six months after the center’s first delivery — a girl who was Alabama’s first baby born in a freestanding birth center — the state health department ordered Skanes to shut it down. A department representative informed her that by holding deliveries at the birth center, she was operating an “unlicensed hospital,” she said.

Hospital labor and delivery units are shuttering across the nation — including more than two dozen in 2025 alone. Freestanding birth centers like Skanes’ could help fill the gaps, but they too are struggling to stay open.

They face some of the same financial pressures that bedevil hospitals’ labor and delivery units, including payments from insurers that don’t cover the full cost of providing maternity care.

Birth center owners also must contend with arcane state rules and antipathy from politically powerful hospitals that view them as competition, especially in rural areas with few births.

Nationwide, the number of freestanding birth centers doubled between 2012 and 2022, but more recently the pressures have taken a toll: About two dozen centers have closed since 2023, bringing the total number down to about 395, according to the most recent data from the American Association of Birth Centers.

In November, Pennsylvania Lifecycle Wellness and Birth Center announced it would shut down birth center services, citing pressure from regulatory challenges and sharp surges in malpractice premiums. It had served Philadelphia for 47 years. And New Mexico’s longest-operating freestanding birth center stopped delivering babies in December.

“When a new business opens, within the first three to five years you expect a certain number will close,” said Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers. “But we’ve had several long-standing birth centers close [in 2025] and that hits particularly hard.”

In California, which has some of the strictest birth center licensing rules in the country, concern over the closure of at least 19 birth centers between 2020 and 2024 prompted the state legislature to pass a law in October to streamline birth center licensure.

An appealing alternative

Freestanding birth centers are not attached to hospitals and aim to provide a more homelike, less traditional medical setting. They employ midwives and focus on low-risk pregnancies and births. Some also have an OB-GYN or family medicine doctor on staff, and they often have partnerships with nearby hospitals and doctors if more specialized care is required.

Some Black and Indigenous midwives and doulas say birth centers can be helpful alternatives to their community members, many of whom have had experiences in more medicalized settings that left them feeling marginalized, dismissed or unsafe.

Midwife Jamarah Amani, executive director of Southern Birth Justice Network, runs a mobile midwifery clinic serving majority-Black and Latino neighborhoods in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The nonprofit, which aims to make midwife and doula care more accessible, recently bought a building for a freestanding birth center it aims to open in 2027.

“[Midwifery] presents like a luxury concierge-type of service, and our goal is to really change that and to bring it back to the community in a very grassroots way,” Amani said. She added that expanding access to prenatal care could help address inequities in maternal health, as maternal death rates among Black women are three times higher than those among white women.

Freestanding birth centers also can be a solution for communities without a hospital nearby.

The closest hospital to the Colville Indian Reservation, located in northern Washington state, is half an hour away, said Faith Zacherle-Tonasket, founder of the nonprofit xa?xa? Indigenous Birth Justice.

So far, the group has trained nearly a dozen tribal doulas and midwives to serve the area. In the next few years, it plans to open a freestanding birth center. Zacherle-Tonasket said Indigenous-run birth centers are crucial alternatives for tribal women, who also have some of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation and often face prejudice in clinical settings.

“They don’t feel safe. So a lot of them just don’t get prenatal care,” said Zacherle-Tonasket. “Bringing traditional midwives that are from our own communities, that were born and raised in our communities, that know the families — we know that those babies will be birthed with love.”

Regulatory hurdles

When the Georgia legislature relaxed state health care regulations in 2024, it felt like a long-awaited win for Katie Chubb. A registered nurse and mother of three who’s worked in health and nonprofits, Chubb has spent years trying to open a birth center in Augusta.

The state denied her application to open the center in 2021. Georgia, like many states, requires health care providers to get state approval, called a certificate of need, before they can build a new facility or expand services. Rival providers, like other hospitals, can challenge an application, effectively vetoing their local competition.

That happened in Chubb’s case: Two local hospitals filed letters of opposition against her and refused to say they’d accept emergency transfers from her birth center, another requirement for opening.

Georgia currently has three freestanding birth centers, a fraction of the more than two dozen that operate in neighboring Florida.

“We’re seeing women giving birth in hospital hallways or at home unassisted, because there’s no in-between option like a birth center,” Chubb said. In October, Georgia lost another labor and delivery unit at a rural hospital two hours north of Augusta.

“Women are just left to figure things out.”

In Kentucky, the Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill in March that aimed to clear the way for freestanding birth centers by exempting them from the certificate of need process.

But Republican lawmakers attached a last-minute anti-abortion amendment to the bill, prompting Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear to veto it. The legislature eventually overrode his veto. Midwifery advocates hope the new law will help make it easier to open a birth center in the state.

Georgia legislators similarly revised Georgia’s certificate of need rules in 2024, exempting freestanding birth centers. Chubb, who championed the new law, hoped it would clear the path for herself and others.

But they hit another roadblock. The state still requires birth centers to secure a written agreement with a local hospital to accept transfers of clients in emergencies. Chubb and at least one other prospective birth center owner have been unable to get their local hospitals to sign such transfer agreements.

“We’re still fighting,” Chubb said. “Behind closed doors we’re still working very hard on getting legislation and regulations changed to make opening birth centers more equitable.”

Some hospitals view birth centers as a threat to the viability of their labor and delivery units, siphoning off patients and revenue from a service that’s already unprofitable for most hospitals.

Daniel Grigg, CEO of Wallowa Memorial Hospital, a 25-bed critical access hospital in northeast Oregon, said there aren’t enough births in the area for both hospitals and birth centers.

“When you’ve got a small-volume community like we have, every birth helps the providers keep their skills up and their competency,” he said. “When you’ve got a midwife taking, say, 10 patients out of that pool,” it can have an impact on physicians and hospitals.

Alabama lawsuit

After the Alabama Department of Public Health shut down Skanes’ birth center in 2023, she joined with two other women who had also been attempting to open birth centers in Alabama: Dr. Yashica Robinson, an OB-GYN in North Alabama, and Stephanie Mitchell, a licensed midwife in Alabama’s rural and economically disadvantaged Black Belt region. Together they sued the Alabama Department of Public Health over what they called a de facto ban on birth centers.

The state insisted its tighter regulations would ensure that birth center facilities are safe. The birth center owners said the state’s rules were overly burdensome and clinically unnecessary for the low-risk, nonsurgical births that are attended by midwives. And, they said, the rules prevented more families from accessing care where it’s desperately needed. The state has lost at least three hospital labor and delivery units since 2020.

“Entire swaths of the state are maternity care deserts without access to essential health care,” said Whitney White, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the birth center owners and their co-plaintiff, the Alabama affiliate of the American College of Nurse-Midwives.

“Hospital labor and delivery units are closing, and pregnant folks are reporting they’re really struggling to access the care they need, struggling to get appointments, struggling to find a provider,” White said.

Last May, an Alabama trial court permanently blocked the state from regulating freestanding birth centers as hospitals. Birth center staff are still overseen by state boards of midwifery and nursing.

All three Alabama centers are now open. But their licensed midwives are delivering babies under a cloud of uncertainty about the future.

The state appealed the ruling in November. The case is ongoing.

Struggles and solutions

Bauer, of the American Association of Birth Centers, said many centers face the same financial barriers. Uncomplicated births at freestanding birth centers cost less than they do at hospitals, but research has shown that insurers, including Medicaid, reimburse centers at lower rates. Some state Medicaid programs don’t cover some of the nonclinical services, such as lactation consultants and doulas, that birth centers may provide. And malpractice premiums are rising.

“We’re volunteering our time, essentially, to keep the birth center open as a service to the community,” said Sarah Simmons, co-owner of Maple Street Birth Center in rural Okanogan County, Washington. The center can’t afford to hire a front-desk staffer or another midwife, Simmons said. She added that on average, the center makes less than a third of what the local hospital makes for providing the same obstetric service.

But there may be solutions to some of these financial problems. For example, the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, a national health care policy center, has recommended that health insurance plans, both Medicaid and commercial, pay hospitals and birth centers monthly or quarterly “standby capacity payments” per woman of childbearing age covered by that health plan in the facility’s service area. It also recommends that plans pay a separate delivery fee for each birth.

In 2024, Democratic U.S. senators proposed a bill to allow for a similar payment model.

Standby payments could help freestanding birth centers, especially those that fill gaps in maternity care deserts — but not unless centers receive payments that are comparable to those that hospitals get, said Simmons, whose center serves four sparsely populated counties along with the Colville tribal communities.

“This would be most beneficial to freestanding birth centers if pay parity laws were enforced, so rural freestanding birth centers were paid the same rates for the same services as rural hospitals, ” she said.

State grants also can help, but birth centers say a one-time infusion won’t be enough. In 2024, Washington opened grant applications for distressed hospital labor and delivery units and freestanding birth centers.

Ashley Jones, of True North Birth Center and president of the Washington chapter of the American Association of Birth Centers, said the grant has helped keep their doors open.

Meanwhile, Chubb, the Georgia nurse, recently had to take another job to support her family while her birth center remains in legal limbo.

“I’m just waiting until the government figures out what they’re doing.”

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org. Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly speaks with reporters in the Mansfield Room of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Dec. 1, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department will attempt to downgrade Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s retirement rank and pay, seeking to punish him for making a video along with other Democrats in Congress, who told members of the military they didn’t need to follow illegal orders. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth originally threatened to recall Kelly from military retirement and court-martial him for his participation in the video, but announced Monday that the department would instead try to downgrade his rank of captain as well as his retirement pay. 

“Captain Kelly has been provided notice of the basis for this action and has thirty days to submit a response,” Hegseth wrote in a social media post. “The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty five days.”

Hegseth added that Kelly’s “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

Kelly wrote in a social media post that he planned to challenge Hegseth’s attempt to alter his retirement rank and pay, arguing it’s an attempt to punish him for challenging the Trump administration. 

“My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head– all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder,” Kelly wrote. “Generations of servicemembers have made these same patriotic sacrifices for this country, earning the respect, appreciation, and rank they deserve.”

Kelly added that Hegseth’s goal with the process is to “send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way. It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.”

Constitutional protection

Members of Congress are generally protected under the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that unless a lawmaker is involved in treason, felony and breach of the peace, they are “privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The Defense Department letter of censure to Kelly alleged that his participation in the video undermined the military chain of command, counseled disobedience, created confusion about duty, brought discredit upon the Armed Forces and included conduct unbecoming of an officer. 

Hegseth wrote in that letter that if Kelly continues “to engage in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, you may subject yourself to criminal prosecution or further administrative action.”

Allegations of misconduct

The Department of Defense posted in late November that officials were looking into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly for appearing in the video. 

It didn’t detail how Kelly might have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice but stated that “a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” 

Hegseth referred the issue to Navy Secretary John Phelan for any “review, consideration, and disposition” he deemed appropriate. Hegseth then asked for a briefing on the outcome of the review “by no later than December 10.”

Kelly said during a press conference in early December the military’s investigation and a separate one by the FBI were designed to intimidate the six lawmakers in the video from speaking out against Trump. 

The lawmakers in the video, who have backgrounds in the military or intelligence agencies, told members of those communities they “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

The other Democrats in the video — Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander — are not subject to the military justice system. 

Trump railed against the video a couple of days after it posted, saying the statements represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan leaves the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse on May 15, 2025. Judge Dugan appeared in federal court to answer charges that she helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, elude federal arrest while he was making an appearance in her courtroom on April 18. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan is resigning after she was convicted last month of a felony for helping a man avoid immigration enforcement agents in the county courthouse. 

Dugan submitted her letter of resignation to Gov. Tony Evers on Saturday, writing that serving as a judge has been “the honor of my life.” 

“Behind the bench, I have presided over thousands and thousands of cases — with a commitment to treat all persons with dignity and respect, to act justly, deliberatively, and consistently, and to maintain a courtroom with the decorum and safety the public deserves,” Dugan wrote.

Dugan was convicted last month of felony obstruction of justice following a four-day federal trial. The split jury also found she was not guilty of a related misdemeanor. 

The case against her stemmed from an incident at the courthouse April 18 in which she directed an immigrant appearing before her who was in the U.S. without legal authorization through a side door out of her courtroom while federal agents waited in the hallway outside to arrest him. Agents later apprehended the man outside the building. 

Since her April arrest, Dugan’s case has drawn national political attention as an illustration of the Trump administration’s efforts to increase immigration enforcement in ways that many critics say are heavy handed.  

Following the verdict, Wisconsin Republicans demanded that Dugan resign immediately, citing state law that forbids anyone who has been convicted of a felony from serving as a judge. She has been suspended from duty since her arrest. 

Dugan has not yet been sentenced and her legal team has signaled they’ll make a broad and lengthy appeal effort. But Dugan wrote in her letter that the people of Milwaukee County need a permanent judge on the bench. 

“I am the subject of unprecedented federal legal proceedings, which are far from concluded but which present immense and complex challenges that threaten the independence of our judiciary,” Dugan wrote. “I am pursuing this fight for myself and for our independent judiciary. However, the Wisconsin citizens that I cherish deserve to start the year with a judge on the bench in Milwaukee County Branch 31 rather than have the fate of that Court rest in a partisan fight in the state Legislature.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tim Walz speaks after the end of the special session in June Tuesday, June 10, 2025 at the Minnesota State Capitol. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Gov. Tim Walz ended his campaign for a historic third term on Monday amid mounting pressure from members of his own party and intense attacks from Republicans over widespread fraud in state-run social services programs.

Walz defended his record in a statement and said he was certain he could win a third term, but couldn’t give his entire attention to rooting out fraud while running a campaign.

“I’ve decided to step out of the race and let others worry about the election while I focus on the work,” Walz said in a statement.

Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor elected officials have quietly worried for months that Walz’s name at the top of the ticket would hand Republicans the governorship for the first time in 15 years and sink Democrats’ prospects down the ballot.

Walz met on Sunday with U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who expressed her interest in running for governor, The New York Times reported. Other possible Democratic candidates include Attorney General Keith Ellison and Secretary of State Steve Simon

A slew of Republicans have already entered the race including House Speaker Lisa Demuth, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and former congressional candidate Kendall Qualls.

Walz spent 12 years in Congress before winning the governor’s race in 2018. After the DFL won control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2022, Walz signed in the law the most significant progressive agenda in at least a generation, including free school meals for all students; paid family and medical leave; and the legalization of marijuana.

He burst onto the national political stage in 2024 after former President Joe Biden abandoned his campaign for re-election and then-Vice President Kamala Harris selected Walz as her running mate. Walz became a frequent target of President Donald Trump, whose attacks continued even after Trump won the presidential election.

Walz announced in September that he would run for an unprecedented third, four-year term, after deliberating for months. The assassination of Walz’s friend and close ally, House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman in June, forced Walz and his family to weigh the potential costs of another four years in office.

Trump’s attacks on Walz ratcheted up in recent months as national Republicans learned about the wide-scale fraud that has taken place in Minnesota’s social services programs during his tenure, including the highly-publicized Feeding Our Future scandal, in which fraudsters pocketed hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars intended to feed children during the pandemic.

In December, Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson announced new fraud charges in state-administered Medicaid programs, estimating that fraudsters have stolen as much as $9 billion in government funds. Walz disputed Thompson’s estimate, painting it as a political attack.

Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: info@minnesotareformer.com.

Wrongly convicted people in Wisconsin can wait months to have their cases reviewed and receive compensation that does not meet their needs, advocates say. A bipartisan bill in the state Legislature aims to address those problems. | Photo by Caspar Benson/Getty Images

On Dec. 3, a committee of Wisconsin lawmakers heard from Gabriel Lugo about his time in prison before his conviction was overturned. 

Lugo testified through a statement read by attorney Rex Anderegg in a hearing of the Assembly Committee on State Affairs. He said he experienced constant lockdowns that severely restricted his movement and some correctional officers treating him as less than human. 

Lugo, 36, was convicted of first-degree reckless homicide in 2009 and spent the majority of his incarceration in Waupun Correctional Institution, the state’s oldest prison, which has received scrutiny for prison deaths and living conditions. After Lugo’s conviction was overturned, he was released from jail in June 2023.

According to Christopher Lau of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, the project has helped exonerate more than 30 people. Clients leave prison with medical ailments and emotional trauma, without familial support, employment, savings, and often, with nowhere to call home, his testimony stated. Many struggle to re-enter society. 

Exonerees often have to wait months to get on the agenda for the claims board’s meetings, Lau stated. If they qualify, the law doesn’t provide enough to ensure stable housing, he said, “to say nothing of the costs of social services like counseling, vocational assistance and access to health insurance.” 

The Wisconsin Claims Board can award up to $25,000 in compensation, at a rate not greater than $5,000 per year for the imprisonment, and has also awarded attorney fees. It can recommend that the state Legislature issue additional compensation. 

In February 2016, the Assembly unanimously approved a bill that aimed to increase state support for wrongly convicted people, including enabling the claims board to issue higher payouts. It did not become law. 

AB 583, a bill currently in the Legislature, also aims to provide more aid more quickly to wrongly convicted people. Under the bill, a wrongly convicted person would receive compensation at a yearly rate of $50,000, prorated daily, for the imprisonment; the total would not exceed $1 million. The claims board would adjust the rate yearly to account for the cost of living, and it would be able to award compensation in an annuity payable over time. 

The bill addresses when people who received compensation for wrongful imprisonment in the past can petition for more under the new law, potentially allowing some to receive more compensation. 

The bill lays out when wrongly convicted people could have health care coverage under plans offered by the Group Insurance Board to state employees. 

Under the bill, if a person is released from imprisonment on the basis of a claim of innocence, they could petition for a court order directing the Department of Corrections to create a transition-to-release plan. They could also petition for a financial assistance award of up to 133% of the federal poverty level for up to 14 months, or while compensation proceedings are pending, whichever is shorter. 

State legislators who introduced the bill included Republican and Democratic lawmakers. Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, submitted testimony in support of the bill. 

The bill bars some people from filing a petition with the claims board for compensation for wrongful imprisonment, such as a person who is convicted of a violent crime after being released. 

Records-sealing language

Also under the bill, a person released from imprisonment on the basis of a claim of innocence could petition the court for the sealing of all records related to the case. For Lugo, it took about two years to get a response from job applications because his case was still visible online, his statement said. 

A similar provision in the bill that the Assembly passed in 2016 drew pushback from the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, which argued that it would “dramatically compromise the ability of media and the public to examine what went wrong in cases in which things are known to have gone terribly wrong.”

On Dec. 22, the Wisconsin Examiner reached out to the office of Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek), one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, about the provision and the council’s concern in 2016. 

“Thank you for bringing this information to our attention as we were not aware of this when we introduced the bill this session,” Rodriguez said in an emailed comment. “The organization has not reached out to us with any concerns at this time.”

Lawsuits

Wrongly convicted people may also attempt to obtain a monetary award through lawsuits. The bill addresses the possibility of a person receiving a settlement, judgement or award for damages in a federal or state action related to their wrongful imprisonment. 

Under one of these parts of the bill, if the person obtains a settlement before the claims board awards them compensation, the claims board would subtract the amount from the board’s compensation. 

Changing the process

Under current law, the claims board is responsible for finding whether the evidence of the person’s innocence is “clear and convincing.” 

The claims board members come from the Department of Justice, the Department of Administration, the Office of the Governor, the Wisconsin Senate and the Wisconsin Assembly. The Senate and Assembly members are Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Markesan).

Under the bill, when the claims board receives a petition for compensation for an innocent convict, it would be referred to the Division of Hearings and Appeals in the Department of Administration. The division would find whether the evidence is clear and convincing that the petitioner was innocent of the crime they were imprisoned for. 

If the evidence is clear and convincing for innocence, the division would transmit its findings to the claims board, which would decide what amount of compensation would be equitable. 

Individual bills

In a decision dated Jan. 30 of this year, the claims board awarded $25,000 to Gabriel Lugo, plus approximately $77,000 in attorney fees, and recommended that the Legislature award him an additional $750,000.

According to Rodriguez, the Legislature has only passed individual appropriation bills awarding additional compensation three times. 

Rodriguez’s testimony stated that it’s estimated that around 72 people have been exonerated in Wisconsin since 1990, and that seven received recommendations for compensation above the cap. She stated in a press release that “the Legislature should not have to play judge and jury again” when there is already a process at the claims board. 

“Without these reforms, exonerees would continue to need individual appropriation bills to receive an adequate amount of compensation,”  Rodriguez stated in a press release. “These bills have rarely been acted upon, and even more rarely are signed into law.”

The board has also recommended that the Legislature issue additional compensation for Robert and David Bintz, who were released from prison in the fall of last year.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Enrique Casiano addresses a rally at the Wisconsin State Capitol on Sept. 4, 2025, during a strike by UAW-represented employees against Mercyhealth East Clinic in Janesville. (Photo courtesy of Enrique Casiano)

Among the Democrats running for the chance to challenge the Republican incumbent in Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District are a nurse, a union leader, a working class activist and a Hispanic professional.

A fifth candidate, Enrique Casiano of Janesville, happens to check all four of those boxes. A 47-year-old registered nurse, Casiano said his decision to join the Democratic field of hopefuls for the 1st District seat arose during a four-month strike at the Mercyhealth East Clinic in Janesville, where he is a leader in United Auto Workers Local 95.

The walkout of UAW-represented nurses, physical therapists, medical assistants and maintenance employees at the clinic started July 2, centered on health care costs, wages and security for employees.

“When September came around we were still on strike,” Casiano recalled. “I was thinking to myself, What in the world is going on? Why would a company do this to their employees? Why would this even be allowed?”

He and fellow union members blamed federal labor laws. Casiano said they have “no teeth” and don’t hold employers accountable.

“That has to be changed at a national level,” Casiano said. “That’s what motivated me to get out there and run for Congress.”

The strike ended Nov. 3, when the clinic management and the union ratified a new contract. The agreement led to raises that were higher than nonunion employees received elsewhere in the Mercyhealth system, Casiano said, although still less than what the union had originally sought. Health care costs for employees will be “basically three times” what they were previously, he added.

“This was a big concession,” Casiano said. “Something I told the membership, this should be a wake-up call for everybody to vote for someone who’s going to do something about the health care crisis in our nation.”

Casiano argues that health care is a human right and government should do more to prevent health care costs from leaving people in debt or sending them into bankruptcy.

“If you have the money, you’ll get care,” he said. “If you don’t have the money, I’ve seen how many people end up being homeless or go into great debt because of their health.”

He supports Medicare for All, but also favors giving states greater freedom to regulate the health care systems. He opposes consolidation among health care groups and favors breaking up large hospital and health care systems, as well as keeping for-profit businesses, including private equity and venture capital firms, out of health care.

“The current system rewards profiting from people’s health care crisis,” Casiano said. “It is not a system of prevention and rewarding the best health care outcomes and practices.”

Casiano said that updating the 1930s-era National Labor Relations Act with laws that would strengthen the rights of workers to union representation is a top priority of his. If elected he would also seek to enact stronger federal laws against wage theft and against misclassifying workers as independent contractors with fewer protections. He said that he also wants “real tax relief to the working class” instead of the wealthy.

Casiano is one of five Democrats vying for the chance to challenge U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, the Republican incumbent in the 1st District now in his fourth term.

“I’m part of the working class. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a politician,” Casiano said — although he readily acknowledged that every other Democrat competing for the nomination could make the same claim.

“Pretty much everybody running this time around, we’re all just working class people who want to see a change in the 1st District,” he said.

The rest of the Democratic field includes ironworker Randy Bryce, emergency room nurse Mitchell Berman, Racine community activist Gage Stills and university administrator Miguel Aranda.

As he shapes his campaign, Casiano is leaning into his background as a health care professional, a union activist and also a member of the Hispanic community.

He said the Trump administration’s round-ups of immigrants — which has caught up U.S. citizens in addition to people without legal immigration status — has a personal dimension.

“It’s sad that I, when I go to Milwaukee, can be stopped [by police] just because of the way I look and the way I talk,” he said. “At the national level, we’re attacking specific [ethnic groups of] people, which we’ve never done before.”

The 1st Congressional District has been solidly Republican since the mid-1990s. Steil succeeded Paul Ryan in the office when Ryan stepped aside  in 2018 after a 20-year tenure. A corporate lawyer and former Ryan aide, Steil won with margins of 9 to 10 points in 2022 and 2024.

The Cook Political Report has rated the district as likely Republican in 2026, and gives the GOP a 2-point advantage based on past presidential elections.

Casiano contends political apathy accounts for Steil’s success. “In the last election, many of my coworkers, they just did not go out to vote,” he said. “It’s not winnable, somebody told me [because] it’s all about the money.”

He contends that 2026 can be different.

“What’s changed now is the Trump administration and how messed up everything is going,” Casiano said. “Only people that have blinders on will say everything is OK, because it’s not.”

Casiano said he knows he’s a long-shot candidate, but he believes Steil is vulnerable and that people can be motivated to vote if candidates reach out to them.

“I know he has let down a lot of his constituents,” Casiano said. “We know he’s not out there for the farmers, or some of the small businesses” in the district, he added. “That’s the big message we’ve got to bring forward.”

He believes enough people have stayed away from the polls in the past to make a difference in the outcome for 2026.

“We have to go and start talking to Black and brown people in our community and get them out to vote,” Casiano said. “This is what I’m going to be fighting for.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Neighbors confront Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Special Response Team officers following an immigration raid at the Italian restaurant Buono Forchetta in San Diego on May 30, 2025. (Photo courtesy of Pedro Rios)

This story was originally published by CalMatters. 

A series of immigration raids across California in 2025 had one thing in common: Most of the federal agents detaining people wore masks over their faces.

This month, the state of California and its largest county will ban law enforcement officers from covering their faces, with a few exceptions, putting local and state police at odds with masked immigration agents.

The state law gives law enforcement officers a choice: If they cover their faces, they lose the ability to assert “qualified immunity,” the doctrine that protects officers from individual liability for their actions. That means they can be sued for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest or malicious prosecution, and the law adds a clause that says the minimum penalty for committing those offenses while wearing a mask is $10,000.

Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, a Los Angeles Democrat who co-authored the law, said it was necessary to rein in anonymous federal agents.

“We initially were under the understanding that, oh, they’re only targeting folks who were not citizens,” Gonzalez said, “And then actually over time you learn they don’t give a [crap] who you are, they’re attacking you no matter what, with no due process.”

The Trump administration has sued to block the bill, and more than a century of federal court precedent is on its side. An 1890 Supreme Court case provides that a state cannot prosecute a federal law enforcement officer acting in the course of their duties.

The Trump administration said in its brief to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that forcing agents to reveal their identities would put the agents at risk.

During Immigration and Customs Enforcement “actions, individuals can be heard threatening to doxx and find out who officers and their family members are and where they live,” the administration’s lawyers said in the Nov. 17 brief. “There are even public websites that seek and publish personal information about ICE and other federal officers to harass and threaten them and their families.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, said the issue may not be as cut-and-dried as one or two Supreme Court cases. He pointed to a 2001 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed the case of a federal sniper who killed a woman during the 1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho, standoff to go to trial.

“It basically says that a federal officer can be criminally prosecuted for unreasonable actions,” Chemerinsky said. “Federal officers, by virtue of being federal officers, do not get immunity from all state civil and criminal laws.”

Brian Marvel, president of an organization that represents California police unions, said the law will make life harder for local cops and county sheriffs’ deputies. The organizations that represent police chiefs, sheriffs, agents in the attorney general’s office and California Highway Patrol officers opposed the law, too.

“I think that the state has put us in a tenuous position with this battle they’re having with the Trump administration,” said Marvel of the Peace Officers Research Association of California. “We don’t want to be in the middle of this fight. But unfortunately, [with] the desire for higher name recognition and elections in 2026, they decided to create things that are much more political and not geared toward legitimate public safety issues.”

Marvel said another drawback of the law is giving “a false sense of hope to the immigrant community in California” that the law will force federal agents to leave the state.

Los Angeles County supervisors have also approved a local mask ban on law enforcement for unincorporated areas of the county, a measure that will go into effect in mid-January, unless a court decision comes sooner.

Gonzalez noted that masks have played a significant role in recent California history. First, California temporarily made masks mandatory in public and at work during the pandemic. Then, a couple of years later, a rush of smash-and-grab robberies were harder to solve because the suspects all wore masks. Now, California finds itself in its third back-and-forth over face coverings.

The law provides exemptions for N-95 or medical-grade masks to prevent infection transmission, and permits undercover operatives to wear a mask.

“This is specifically aimed to federal agents because we gotta combat these kidnappings somehow,” Gonzalez said, “and this was our way in.”

A preschool teacher prepares lunch for students inside a day care center. (Photo by Billy Hustace/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — States must now provide “justification” that federal child care funds they receive are spent on “legitimate” providers in order to get those dollars, President Donald Trump’s administration announced. 

The Tuesday shift in policy came following allegations of fraud in Minnesota’s child care programs, which prompted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to freeze all child care payments to the state. 

HHS could not offer many specifics on how the review process will play out for other states, but clarified that the money in question is provided through the multibillion-dollar federal Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF. 

“States will be required to provide documentation, such as written justification, receipts, or photographic evidence, demonstrating that funds are supporting legitimate child care providers,” Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for HHS, said in a statement to States Newsroom on Wednesday. 

CCDF provides federal funding to states, territories and tribes to help low-income families obtain child care. 

The program, administered within the Office of Child Care under HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, combines funding from the Child Care and Development Block Grant, or CCDBG, and the Child Care Entitlement to States, or CCES. 

Funding for CCDF in fiscal year 2025 stood at roughly $12.3 billion — comprising $8.75 billion from CCDBG and $3.55 billion from CCES. 

Head Start — a separate program that provides early childhood education, nutritious meals, health screenings and other support services to low-income families — does not appear to be affected. 

In a Tuesday social media post announcing the move, Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said he had “activated our defend the spend system for all ACF payments” and “starting today, all ACF payments across America will require a justification and a receipt or photo evidence before we send money to a state.” 

He clarified in a separate post shortly after that “funds will be released only when states prove they are being spent legitimately.” 

Funds undergo ‘regular audits’

“Federal funding enables millions of parents in every state and Congressional district to access and afford quality child care,” Sarah Rittling, executive director of First Five Years Fund, a federal advocacy group, said in a Wednesday statement. 

Rittling added that “these funds are essential to the nation’s well-being, allowing parents to work while ensuring their children are cared for and safe.” 



She also described the reports of potential fraud as “deeply concerning” and pointed out that “state oversight through regular audits is required by law to ensure that every dollar intended to protect and support young children is used properly and effectively.” 

“At the same time, we must ensure that nothing takes away from making sure funds for child care continue to reach the children and families who depend on them,” she said. 

Smoke is seen over buildings after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard on Jan. 3, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela. According to some reports, explosions were heard in Caracas and other cities near airports and military bases around 2 a.m. (Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Saturday that the United States will “run the country” of Venezuela until “a proper transition can take place,” following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a strike against the South American nation, a stunning move conducted without congressional notice or approval.

Trump in a press conference from his Florida estate made it clear how much the secret military operation earlier Saturday related to securing oil, and he detailed how petroleum companies would finance the rebuilding of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. 

Trump as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio also signaled other countries, such as Cuba, could face the same interventionist fate as Venezuela. “If I lived in Havana and worked for the government I’d be concerned,” Rubio said, referring to the communist nation’s capital. 

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who was also captured, will be brought to New York to face a U.S. indictment on narco-terrorism and conspiracy charges originally levied in 2020. The Venezuelan’s reelection to the presidency in 2024 was determined by many countries, including the U.S., to be illegitimate, and he has been characterized by the administration as the leader of a drug cartel.

“This extremely successful operation should serve as (a) warning to anyone who would threaten American sovereignty or endanger American lives,” Trump said. “What happened to Maduro could happen to them.”

The military strike quickly drew strong rebukes from Democratic lawmakers, who said the action superseded Congress’ authority to declare war. It’s also caused deep concern among world leaders, some of whom pushed for an emergency United Nations meeting.

However, Republicans in Congress stood by the president’s decision, saying it was justified.

No timeline for US involvement

Trump did not give a timeline for how long the unusual U.S. intervention in Venezuela might go on, but said the next year would look different for the nation. 

“We are going to run the country until such time that we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said. He added that the U.S. would make Venezuela safe for “the great people of Venezuela, and that includes many from Venezuela that are now living in the United States and want to go back to their country.” 

Since taking office, the Trump administration has tried to end temporary and humanitarian legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants. Trump during the press conference repeated accusations that Maduro has sent Venezuelan immigrants with ties to the Tren de Aragua gang to the U.S.

Trump’s military action campaign, named “Absolute Resolve,” came after he waged a months-long pressure campaign to oust the authoritarian leader. Dozens of boat strikes have been carried out in the Caribbean that the president and members of his administration have justified, without showing evidence, by saying the boats were carrying drugs to the U.S.

“The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country,” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, early Saturday. “This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement.”

Before the Saturday press event at Mar-a-Lago started, the president posted a picture to social media of Maduro handcuffed, blindfolded and aboard the U.S.S. Iwo Jima Navy ship.

‘We’re not afraid of boots on the ground’

Trump at the press conference was joined by Rubio; Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth; Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine; CIA Director John Ratcliffe; and senior White House adviser Stephen Miller, who is a lead architect of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. 

Trump said that an “overwhelming American military power” was used to capture Maduro and his wife in the “dead of night” from “air, land and sea.”

He added that no U.S. military members were killed in the operation, but did not rule out a continued presence for American troops in Venezuelan territory. 

“We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” Trump said.

Trump said those officials standing behind him at his press conference, “for a period of time,” would “be running” Venezuela. 

The president offered few details on what that U.S. intervention would look like, but called it a “partnership.” It’s unclear if there are any American officials or troops stationed yet in or near Venezuela. 

Cuba

Trump also lodged a thinly veiled threat against the Cuban government.

“Cuba is not doing really well right now,” Trump said. “I think Cuba is going to be something we’ll end up talking about.”

He added that the U.S. also wants to help Cubans who have been “forced out of their country,” so they can return to the island nation. The Trump administration has also moved to end humanitarian protections for more than 110,000 Cubans. 

Rubio, whose parents were part of the first wave of Cuban exiles before the Fidel Castro regime took over the country, agreed, and criticized Cuba’s government as being run by “incompetent, senile men.”

It’s unclear how the next in line to the presidency for Venezuela, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, will fare. 

Trump said that Rubio had a conversation with Rodríguez, and said “she’s essentially willing to do what is necessary to make Venezuela great again.”

María Corina Machado, the leader of Venezuela’s opposition party, and recent Nobel Peace Prize winner for her work to advance democracy in her home country, called for national unity and said that “the hour for freedom has arrived.” 

“We have struggled for years, we have given it our all, and it has been worth it. What had to happen is happening,” she said in a statement.

Indictment in Southern District of New York

Maduro and his wife will face a trial in the U.S. They have been indicted in the Southern District of New York, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on social media. 

The DOJ also indicted their son, Nicolás Ernesto Maduro Guerra, along with several other Venezuelan politicians, and the alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua Venezuelan gang, Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores.

President Maduro is charged with “Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States,” Bondi said. 

In 2020, the first Trump administration lodged the same four counts of narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and conspiracy to possess machine guns. 

The new indictment includes Maduro’s wife, son and the alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua gang. 

Andy Kim: Officials ‘blatantly lied’ to Congress

The news drew ire from Congress, which has the authority to declare war. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said for weeks Trump officials briefed Congress that the boat strikes were not “about regime change.”

“I didn’t trust them then and we see now that they blatantly lied to Congress,” Kim wrote on social media. “Trump rejected our Constitutionally required approval process for armed conflict because the Administration knows the American people overwhelmingly reject risks pulling our nation into another war.”

However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said the capture of Maduro meant the Venezuelan president would be held accountable. 

“President Trump’s decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States,” Thune said.

He added that when senators return to Congress Monday, he looks forward to additional security briefings from Trump officials.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, made similar remarks and called the attack “justified.” He said he’s working with the Trump administration to schedule briefings with House lawmakers when they return to Washington.

The top Democrat on the House Rules Committee, Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, wrote on social media that without “authorization from Congress, and with the vast majority of Americans opposed to military action, Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela.” 

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who is also co-chair of the Congressional Venezuela Democracy Caucus, said in a statement that the “capture of the brutal, illegitimate ruler of Venezuela … is welcome news for my friends and neighbors who fled his violent, lawless, and disastrous rule.”

However, she called for the opportunity for Venezuelans to partake in democracy, such as being able to swear in the presidential candidate who won Venezuela’s election in the summer of 2024.

President-elect Edmundo Gonzalez was forced into exile and fled to Spain under asylum. Voter results showed that Gonzalez won by a large margin, but Venezuelan government officials, without providing proof, determined that Maduro won. 

Mike Lee speaks to Rubio

Utah’s GOP Sen. Mike Lee initially questioned “what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force.”

But Lee later changed course after speaking with Rubio.

“He informed me that Nicolás Maduro has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant,” Lee said of Rubio.

Rubio has long stated that Venezuela’s president is not legitimate, nor is his government. Rubio accused him of being the head of a drug cartel.  

“He is not the legitimate president of Venezuela,” Rubio said during Saturday’s press conference. “He is a fugitive of American justice.”

Rubio, who while in Congress was a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also defended a lack of notification to lawmakers.

“This is not the kind of mission you can do congressional notification,” Rubio said. 

For months, Democrats and a handful of Republican lawmakers have tried to curb the president’s strikes in the Caribbean, which have killed about 115, but Congress failed to pass several War Powers Resolutions.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a tool for Congress to check the power of the executive branch by limiting the president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.  

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who has pushed for the Senate to vote on the War Powers Resolution, said he will again advocate a vote to curb Trump’s military actions in Venezuela. 

Venezuelans in the US

As the U.S. conducts military land strikes on Venezuela, more than half a million Venezuelan immigrants are legally fighting the Trump administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status. 

TPS is granted when a nation’s home country is deemed too dangerous to return to, due to violence, such as war, or a major natural disaster.

More than 600,000 Venezuelans have TPS, which was initially granted in 2021, just one day before the first Trump administration finished its term. Temporary protections were granted to Venezuelans due to Maduro’s regime. 

Trump has also tried to apply the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to any Venezuelan national, aged 14 and older, who is a suspected gang member, for the purpose of removing them from the U.S. without due process. 

Trump and Maduro also clashed after several deportation planes carrying Venezuelan immigrants landed in El Salvador, where more than 200 men were detained at a brutal mega-prison known as CECOT.

Maduro called the move a “kidnapping,” and several months later the Venezuelans were returned to their home country in a prisoner exchange. 

World leaders call for UN to convene

It’s unclear what the consequences of the Trump administration’s move to capture a foreign leader will have on international relations, but many world leaders disavowed the attacks and called for an emergency United Nations General Assembly meeting. 

The U.N., which is five miles away from the New York court where Maduro will stand trial, did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo condemned the attacks and said they violated Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. 

“Based on its foreign policy principles and its pacifist vocation, Mexico makes an urgent call to respect international law, as well as the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, and to cease any act of aggression against the Venezuelan government and people,” she said in a statement.

Sheinbaum Pardo called on the United Nations to “act immediately to contribute to the de-escalation of tensions, facilitate dialogue and create conditions that allow a peaceful, sustainable solution in accordance with international law.”

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also criticized the attack in Caracas, Venezuela. 

“The justifications put forward for these actions have no factual basis. Ideological hostility has prevailed over pragmatic, businesslike approaches and over efforts to build relationships based on trust and predictability,” according to Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said on social media that the U.S. moves to capture Maduro and bomb Venezuela “cross an unacceptable line.”

“Attacking countries, in flagrant violation of international law, is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism,” he wrote. 

The prime minister of Spain, Pedro Sanchez, called for de-escalation and said that international law “and the principles of the United Nations Charter must be respected.”

California National Guard members stand guard at an entrance to the Wilshire Federal Building on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he will back off his plans to use National Guard troops in the Democratic-led cities of Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon. 

The move follows the Supreme Court’s decision last week that found Trump could not deploy guard members to Chicago, ruling that the president did not meet the requirements to send guard members to the Windy City for the purpose of assisting with federal immigration enforcement.

Several federal judges have either blocked the deployments or found them unlawful. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally prevents the military from participating in civilian law enforcement.

“We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again – Only a question of time!” Trump wrote on his social media site, TruthSocial.

The president first deployed National Guard troops earlier this summer to Los Angeles, following massive protests against immigration raids. 

He has continued to send service members to cities with Democratic leaders, a decision that has tested the legal bounds of presidential authority on military law all the way up to the Supreme Court.

An appeals court in early December ruled that the Trump administration must remove troops from Los Angeles, which upheld a lower court ruling that found it illegal to keep an extended military presence long after protests quelled. 

In November, a federal judge permanently blocked the Trump administration from deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon.

The judge, Karin Immergut, found the move to use service members for the purpose of protecting a federal immigration facility exceeded presidential authority. Trump nominated Immergut in his first term.

Guard members are still deployed in the District of Columbia; Memphis, Tennessee; and New Orleans, Louisiana.

A homeless teen, holding a sign “Only 19, alone on the street,” asks for help in Manhattan in New York City. A report from the Covenant House and researchers at the University of California, Berkeley finds that schools and agencies could do more to intervene when youth struggle at home. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Twenty-year-old Mikayla Foreman knows her experience is meaningful. Dealing with homelessness since 18 and currently living in a shelter, Foreman has managed to continue her academic journey, studying for exams this month in hopes of attaining a nursing degree.

But Foreman believes there were intervention points that could’ve prevented her from experiencing homelessness in the first place.

“If someone in school had understood what I was going through, things could’ve been very different,” she said in an interview with Stateline.

As more cities impose bans, fines or jail time for adults living on the streets, young people who have been homeless say they face unique problems that could have been addressed earlier. Through more than 400 interviews and survey responses, young people across the country recently told researchers how earlier guidance and intervention might have made a difference for them. The research suggests the country is missing its biggest opportunity to prevent youth homelessness — by intervening well before a young person reaches a shelter and years before they are chronically homeless.

The report, from Covenant House and the University of California, Berkeley, finds that the pathways into youth homelessness are different from those of adults experiencing temporary or chronic homelessness. A young person coming out to their family, or becoming pregnant, or experiencing untreated trauma can create conflicts that push them into homelessness. A lot of that doesn’t show up in current data.

The survey responses offer the nation’s schools and social services agencies the chance to get ahead of youth homelessness, researchers say, not only by intervening earlier, but also by pinpointing and responding to the diversity of needs among teenagers and young adults who might be close to losing their housing.

Advocates say there are multiple intervention points — in school, in child welfare organizations and inside family dynamics — where the worst outcomes can be avoided. States such as California, Florida, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington have explored some of those intervention points in policies that range from guaranteed income pilot programs to youth-specific rental assistance and campus housing protections.

Hawaii has made its youth drop-in and crisis-diversion program permanent, and Oregon and Washington have expanded rental assistance and education-centered supports for vulnerable youth. Florida now requires colleges to prioritize housing for homeless and foster students.

“With young people, we have opportunities to intervene much further upstream — in schools, in families, in child welfare — before anyone has to spend a single night on the streets. That’s simply not the case with older adults,” said David Howard, former senior vice president for Covenant House and a co-author of the new research, in an interview with Stateline.

“Even at 18, 20 or 24 [years old], young people are still developing,” Howard said. “Their vulnerabilities look very different from middle-aged adults, and the support systems they need are different too.”

One of the key points of intervention for potentially homeless youth is school. Public schools across the country have increasingly reported more homeless students since the COVID-19 pandemic.

And homelessness has many various regional factors outside of individual circumstances, such as climate-driven homelessness. More than 5,100 students in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina became homeless as a result of hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024.

“Homelessness is multifaceted and lots of us slip through the cracks because the system isn’t designed for our reality,” said Foreman, a former Covenant House resident who helped conduct the new research.

Foreman’s insights and lived experience were included in the study, which showed that youth homelessness rarely begins with an eviction or job loss — frequent causes of homelessness among adults.

The top three reasons that young people experience homelessness for the first time, according to respondents, were being kicked out of their family homes, running away, and leaving an unsafe living situation such as one affected by domestic violence. Other instigators included being unable to afford housing, aging out of foster care, being kicked out of or running away from foster care, and moving away from gang violence.

However, respondents also had suggestions for ways government, schools and the community could help or prevent youth homelessness. They suggested youth-specific housing options, identifying and helping at-risk youth in health care settings, providing direct cash assistance and offering conflict resolution support within families.

Among the most common suggestions was to offer services that create long-lasting connections for young people.

“Strong relationships with non-parental adults, including mentors, teachers, service providers, and elders, were identified as especially important when family connections were strained or absent,” the report said.

The surveys and interviews also demonstrated that young people want mental health care tailored to their personal experience, said Benjamin Parry, a lead researcher on the report, speaking during a September webinar hosted by Point Source Youth, a nonprofit that works to end youth homelessness.

The research breaks out responses from a few specific groups — Indigenous, Latino, immigrant, LGBTQ+ people of color and pregnant or parenting youth — to understand their distinct needs, said Parry, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Public Health. “There’s so much nuance and specificity within these different groups.”

Indigenous youth, for example, often are dealing with the effects of intergenerational trauma and alcoholism that have been projected onto them, Parry said. Those young people have far different needs than pregnant or parenting youth, he noted.

“They are like, ‘I don’t know where my next paycheck’s going to come from, I don’t know how to put food in my baby’s stomach, I don’t have a support network or someone to go to for this advice,’” he said. “That specificity is exactly why we need to understand this better and do better to tailor our approaches and responses.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

President Donald Trump holds up the "One, Big Beautiful Bill" Act that he signed into law on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Brandon - Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — This year produced a seemingly endless array of history-making events and nearly constant change to immigration policy, tariffs, the Education Department and federal health care programs.

President Donald Trump came back into office emboldened by a decisive 2024 election victory and empowered by Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. The unified GOP government enacted a major tax cuts and domestic spending law in July, but hit a roadblock in late September when the federal government shut down for a record-breaking six weeks.

Here’s a look back at some of the biggest news stories from Washington, D.C.

January 

The U.S. House began the year reelecting Louisiana Republican Mike Johnson as speaker and pushing through a series of GOP-favored bills focused on immigration and transgender student athletes. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., officially took over the role from Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., pledging to protect the legislative filibuster, the 60-vote procedural hurdle that requires at least some bipartisanship for major legislation to advance. Meanwhile, several committees began the confirmation process for Trump’s nominees.

Just days ahead of his second inauguration, a judge sentenced Trump in the New York hush money case for paying off an adult film star in the leadup to the 2016 election. 

Trump, who moved his inauguration indoors amid arctic weather, marked the first day of his second term by signing a series of executive orders addressing immigration and birthright citizenship, as well as climate change and LGBTQ rights. He also pardoned 1,500 people who were convicted of various crimes related to the Jan. 6. 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

Just before the end of the month, Trump signed the first bill approved by the Republican-controlled Congress, the Laken Riley Act. And he announced plans to implement tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, the start of one of his signature economic policies. 

February

Lawsuits against Trump’s actions began piling up within weeks as Democratic attorneys general, immigrant rights organizations and civil liberties groups accused the administration of overstepping its authority. 

Trump and other administration officials sought to reduce the size and scope of the federal government by firing thousands of probationary workers and called on the heads of all federal agencies to submit reorganization plans by mid-March. He also fired 20 immigration judges.

Republicans in Congress started working through the several complicated steps of the budget reconciliation process that would eventually lead to the “big, beautiful bill.” 

March

Trump’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education began advancing shortly after the Senate voted to confirm Linda McMahon as secretary. In one of her first acts leading the department, she wrote in a memo its “final mission” would be to “to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children.”

Trump signed an executive order later in the month directing McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the Education Department, though much of that authority rests with Congress. 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts issued a rare public statement defending the judicial branch against criticism from Trump. 

The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee asked the Defense Department inspector general to look into the use of the Signal messaging app by high-ranking officials to discuss an imminent bombing in Yemen. A journalist at The Atlantic was inadvertently added to the chat and later published a series of articles about the experience. 

April

The Trump administration admitted in court filings that officials mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia of Maryland to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador. 

The Supreme Court became more involved in the national debate about Trump’s policies toward immigrants, first ruling that the administration didn’t need to bring Abrego Garcia back before reversing course and ruling officials must “facilitate” his return to the United States. 

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, sitting alongside Trump in the Oval Office, later said he wouldn’t send Abrego Garcia back.

Separately, Trump’s tariff policies were the focus of a Senate hearing. Republicans in Congress settled on an outline for their “big, beautiful bill” and later began advancing different parts of that package out of House committees. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would refocus autism research funding on environmental factors. And Trump signed a series of executive orders addressing education policy. 

May

The Supreme Court ruled that a ban on transgender people serving in the military could remain in place while the case continued at a lower level, that the Trump administration violated due process rights when it tried to deport some Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, that the administration could end temporary protected status for 350,000 Venezuelans, and that the Trump administration could proceed with deportations for 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who had been granted temporary protected status. 

Republicans in the House voted to approve a 1,116-page package that combined 11 bills into what would eventually become the “big, beautiful bill,” sending the measure to the Senate. 

Former President Joe Biden was diagnosed with “a more aggressive form” of prostate cancer.

June

Trump doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum, from 25% to 50%, saying during a trip to a U.S. Steel plant in Pennsylvania that he would increase them even further if he thought it would be necessary to “secure the steel industry in the United States.” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported later in the month that his tariff policies would reduce the country’s deficit but likely slow the economy. 

Immigration continued to be a central part of the news cycle with Abrego Garcia returning to the U.S., California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla being forcibly removed and handcuffed while attempting to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question during a press conference in Los Angeles and the Supreme Court weighing in on lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions. 

Trump said the U.S. military had bombed “three key nuclear facilities” in Iran before calling for peace.   

July

The Senate approved the final, much reworked version of the “big, beautiful bill,” sending it back to the House, which voted along party lines to clear the sweeping tax and health care package for Trump, who signed it on the Fourth of July. 

The legislation included several policy goals for the GOP, including on Medicaid, immigration and deportations and a national private school voucher program. The Congressional Budget Office expects the law will increase the federal deficit by $3.394 trillion during the next decade and lead 10 million people to lose access to health insurance.

The Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration could continue with its plans for mass layoffs and downsizing at the Education Department.

Trump was diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a “benign and common” condition for people over the age of 70, according to U.S. Navy Capt. Sean Barbabella, the president’s physician.

Senators from both parties expressed frustration that Department of Agriculture officials didn’t consult with Congress before proposing to move thousands of jobs out of the Washington, D.C., area. 

Trump announced a deal with European Union leaders that would result in a 15% tariff on most goods coming into the U.S. from those 27 countries.

August

Trump started off the month instituting a 15% tariff on goods brought into the U.S. from about three dozen countries, though he raised that amount for several nations, including 18% on products from Nicaragua, 30% on imports from South Africa and 50% on goods from Brazil.

A New York State appeals court ruled the $465 million civil penalty against Trump in the case where he was found liable for financial fraud for inflating the worth of some of his real estate holdings was excessive.

Republican and Democratic state legislatures, urged on by the president and members of Congress, sought to begin the November 2026 midterm elections early by redrawing maps for U.S. House seats to give their party a baked-in advantage. 

Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook sued Trump after he attempted to fire her, arguing in court documents his actions were an “unprecedented and illegal attempt” that would erode the board’s independence. 

September

A federal appeals court ruled that Trump did need to pay an $83 million penalty for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll. 

The Supreme Court ruled that federal immigration agents could racially profile Latinos in Southern California as a lawsuit over the issue continued through the federal courts. 

Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez testified before a Senate committee that she was fired from that role after less than a month because she refused to pre-approve vaccine recommendations. 

Trump and several other high-ranking Republicans spoke at the memorial service for conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated during an event at Utah Valley University. 

Kirk’s death was one of several instances of political violence this year that also included the killing of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, the arson at the official home of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the shooting at the CDC’s headquarters in Atlanta.

A group of U.S. investors reached an agreement to take over TikTok, the immensely popular social media app, avoiding the need for it to go offline in the United States. 

October

Congress failed to approve the dozen full-year government funding bills before the start of the new fiscal year, leaving an opening for a government shutdown. Democrats tried to bring attention to health care costs and other issues throughout the weeks-long debacle. 

The funding stalemate impacted nearly every corner of the federal government, including pay for federal employees like air traffic controllers, food aid for lower-income families, Head Start and public lands.  

The No Kings day protests highlighted some Americans’ discontent with Trump and Republican policies a little more than a year before the 2026 midterm elections will measure that frustration at the ballot box. 

Trump demolished the East Wing of the White House to make way for construction of a ballroom that will be nearly double the size of the 55,000-square-foot residence and workplace. 

November 

The shutdown stalemate ended after Senate Majority Leader Thune promised Democrats a vote on a health care bill of their choosing before the end of the year. 

The funding bill approved by Congress and signed by Trump included three full-year funding bills but a stopgap for the rest of government, setting up the possibility of a partial government shutdown beginning in February if lawmakers don’t broker a deal before then. 

The final days of the shutdown included a tug-of-war between the judicial branch and the Trump administration over whether they needed to pay full benefits for the 42 million people enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case that will determine whether Trump overstepped when he instituted tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. 

Separately, the justices allowed the Trump administration to continue issuing male or female passports based on a person’s assigned sex at birth. 

Congress approved a bill forcing the Trump administration to release the Epstein files. 

A gunman opened fired on two National Guard members from West Virginia who were just blocks from the White House. U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died the next day as a result of her injuries. 

December 

The man charged with shooting the two National Guard members pleaded not guilty during an arraignment hearing and was denied bond in the case, which was later moved to federal court as prosecutors contemplated whether to seek the death penalty.  

The Trump administration moved to limit legal immigration and pressed for mass deportations, raising concerns about the shooter, an Afghan national who worked alongside allied troops and was granted asylum in the United States.

Separately, the FBI charged a 30-year-old Virginia man with placing pipe bombs outside the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee offices ahead of the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

A federal judge ordered immigration officials to release Abrego Garcia.

The House and Senate were unable to come up with a bipartisan agreement to avoid a spike in health insurance premiums for the 22 million Americans enrolled in the Affordable Care Act marketplace who have benefited from an enhanced tax credit created during the coronavirus pandemic to make coverage less expensive. But a discharge petition in the House will force a floor vote early in the new year to extend the subsidies for three more years. 

The Department of Justice released tens of thousands of documents linked to the investigation into deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein before announcing officials had received a million more pages that will be published in the coming weeks. 

Kilmar Abrego Garcia stands outside U.S. District Court in Greenbelt with his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, left, and Lydia Walther-Rodriguez with CASA, after a federal judge ruled earlier this month he was allowed to remain free. (File photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

A federal judge in Tennessee is ordering federal prosecutors to turn over some documents to lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia as they try to show his indictment on human smuggling charges was the product of vindictive prosecution.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s nine-page ruling — issued under seal Dec. 3, but unsealed at noon Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville — said a “subset” of more than 3,000 government documents he reviewed appear to undercut the government’s defense against vindictive prosecution.

“Specifically, the government’s documents may contradict its prior representations that the decision to prosecute was made locally and that there were no outside influences,” Crenshaw wrote.

The order is a partial victory for Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran native who lives in Maryland, where he was stopped by immigration agents in March and deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. His removal came without due process and despite an earlier court order that prohibited  immigration officials from deporting Abrego Garcia to his home country, for fear of violence.

A series of court battles ended with the U.S. Supreme Court in April ordering Abrego Garcia be returned to the United States. He was finally brought back to the U.S. in June, where he faced new charges of human smuggling, stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee where he was let go without a citation.

Abrego Garcia argues that the smuggling charge was concocted years after the fact to punish him for embarrassing the administration in court, and should be thrown out.

The charges of “conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain” are tied to a 2022 traffic stop in Putnam County, Tennessee, where he was pulled over for speeding. There were nine passengers in the back of his car.

Abrego Garcia was not arrested. No ticket was issued.

But three years later, as he was winning his case to be returned to the U.S., federal prosecutors were revisiting that traffic stop. A Homeland Security agent told a federal judge earlier this year that he was told on April 28 of this year to investigate the traffic stop.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charges, that his attorneys have claimed were filed as retaliation against their client. They claim senior officials in the Justice Department pushed for the indictment, citing television interviews where Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the investigation began after “a judge in Maryland … questioned” the government and accused it of “doing something wrong,” according to Crenshaw’s order.

The government denies involvement by higher-ups, saying the decision to prosecute Abrego Garcia was made solely by Robert McGuire, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Crenshaw’s order includes a timeline of events. In it are several communications between McGuire and D.C.-based U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh that began on April 27, one day before a federal agent was assigned to investigate the 2022 traffic stop.

In an April 30 exchange, Singh writes that Abrego’s case is “a top priority.” McGuire writes “we want the high command looped in.”

In a May 15 email, McGuire writes about the pending indictment.

“Ultimately, I would hope to have ODAG [Office of the Deputy Attorney General] eyes on it as we move towards a decision about whether this matter is going to ultimately be charged,” he wrote, according to Crenshaw’s order.

McGuire adds: “While ultimately, the office’s decision to charge will land on me. I think it makes sense to get the benefit of all of your brains and talent in this process and as we consider this case. I have not received specific direction from ODAG other than I have heard anecdotally that the DAG and PDAG would like Garcia charged sooner rather than later.”

Singh is updated about the indictment over the next week, according to Crenshaw’s timeline.

“These documents show that McGuire did not act alone and to the extent McGuire had input on the decision to prosecute, he shared it with Singh and others,” Crenshaw wrote.

Abrego’s attorneys successfully made a case before Crenshaw that prosecutors had acted vindictively. They sought the release of documents through discovery. Federal prosecutors balked and withheld those documents, citing privilege.

Crenshaw, in his now-unsealed order, said allowing the privilege assertion to trump due process protections would undermine rulings by other federal courts.

“The Court recognizes the government’s assertion of privileges, but Abrego’s due process right to a non-vindictive prosecution outweighs the blanket evidentiary privileges asserted by the government,” Crenshaw wrote. “If the work product, attorney-client, and deliberative process privileges asserted by the government precluded all discovery in the context of a vindictiveness motion, defendants would never be able to answer the question ‘what motivated the government’s prosecution?'”